For me, it's a myth that larger head sizes reduce shanking. They also can make you more tentative and fearful of hitting long, they don't get around as well; basically, every advantage is balanced out by an opposing disadvantage. Really, it just boils down to what you're comfortable with using. For Federer, an OS head would I think feel decidedly uncomfortable, and lead to more shanking if anything. If you're a bit tentative, you're simply going to be a split-second behind in your processing, your timing, your swing...it can lead to steering, which leads to less instinctive *movement* and play. It's a negative chain reaction. To me, players will use the general type of model that they've grown accustomed to, it becomes a comfort zone that's hard to shake once you've played awhile. It's more the strings that give you the confidence to swing out or not. A poly/gut hybrid offers to me a virtual night and day difference in terms of predictability and control...it's by far the much bigger factor in why players have gotten in the habit of just letting it all hang out, going for broke is just a much higher percentage play than it used to be. You can't steer the ball in tennis, the second you do, in particular at the higher levels; control goes out the crapper. Shanks increase, footwork positioning becomes self-conscious rather than fluid and adaptive, balls sail long. Basically, you take an "advanced" level swing, but make it tentative, and the shot ends up in racket speed no man's land. Swing speed even when reigning back in tentative at the last second, ends up much harder and swifter than a rudimentary, poke & push, player's stroke...you can poke a ball back into play, but you can't drive fast in a formula 1 race car, then pull back at the last second, asking for a Honda Civic...bad idea.

So, for me, I don't really see Agassi's use of an OS head as being a tremendous advantage as far as ball striking goes...when every advanced player has a choice, and many find OS heads to be a hinderance to their ball striking if anything.

Agassi was more dialed-in from the center of the court, he was more straight-forward. Far more predictable with spin, placement, and such; but this was also an advantage to some extent in that he did not have a lot running through his head...his game plan was generally pretty clear. Impose his groundies on you, stuff 'em down your throat until you drop, make you run more than him, and don't miss. An amazingly clean hitter on his best days, he hardly seemed to miss the ball. When he was fully locked in, he was a terminator, a battery and assault machine...but no magician. Federer wishes to dazzle you, hypnotize you, and *surprise* you with his ground attack. He likes to think of himself as more of a tennis artiste', both matador and bull at the same time. He wears both hats, whereas Agassi only wore one...that of the bull. But man, when he was on, that bull didn't miss very often with those horns.

Agassi was a *surer* ball striker, a cleaner one. His pure hand-eye coordination was equalled really only by peak Rios from his generation; but he was purer ball striker not concerned with suddenly taking the air out of the ball with touch shots, slice and dice tactics, cutesy finesse angles, and so forth. Everything Agassi tried to throw at you was hard, brutal, and clean...mercenary.

Federer is more a case of the sum of all parts coming together feeling overwhelming. He's got a vulnerable side in his backhand, it's still a good shot; but it's obviously a "confidence" shot for him. Not the kind of shot, you feel will always be there for you that day; it's a gone with the wind shot. Agassi's other great strength beyond his hand-eye coordination, was that he was rock solid *comfortable* off BOTH sides. He did not need to favor one side or the other, if Berastategui wakes up feeling pepless one morning, he looks like he's dreaming of Meg Ryan in Seatle...hopeless, clueless, like he's in search of some TRT and Rogaine shakes, a slurpee on the changeover, Hugh Hefner in his bag, anything to get him going. A step pepless and he's hopeless, he MUST get around to hit that forehand as much as humanly possible. I feel it's one of the less discussed reasons for Agassi's longevity. It's mentally far more fatiguing over the long haul when you're so dependent on a single weapon (other than the serve). It's exhausting, uninspired, and BORING to play to attack off your forehand, time after time, after time, trying to execute the same pattern to the same level of perfection for year after year.

Federer was a painter, a dab here, a bold stroke there, a honk on the nose here, drop his pants there, oh, no you looked! And lost the point, Fed makes it difficult to establish your "bashing rhythm" that so many pros are reliant on establishing. Agassi gives you rhythm, but he's flame throwing Bowser breathing down your throat from the word jump, rattle, and roll. He was not a jive dancer, he was just overzealous in his attack. On the run, though? A bleeting goat, "meh...meh...mehhh..." he was so-so. Fed on the run, was like Jim Carey taking the helms of an aeroplane...you're no, you're in for some zany, high-paced, creative, sometimes insane, sometimes surprisingly classy "genius," you know, a little bit of fun, grab the popcorn, and throw it in the air, whooo!!! Ric Flair style, prime FedEx was a unicorn on the run, how you Americans say, da bomb...and yet, from a strictly anaylical standpoint. A purer ball striker means your great hits are reliant less on your awesome athleteness, and more just on your wheel chair bound striking ability. From this perspective, Agassi at his best was as good as ever. He was truly special.

Fed's best hits, were a product of creativity moxy, and athleticism. He was not an in your face athlete, but he was always there. He covered the court with aplomb, loose and limber, not stiff and pigeon-toed like Agassi the hunchback of Notre Dame by comparison. It's safe to say, that Agassi was the better pure ball striker. In many respects, he had to be. To be an elite, he had to be extraordinary in this category to have a chance.

Agassi was a *surer* ball striker, a cleaner one. His pure hand-eye coordination was equalled really only by peak Rios from his generation; but he was purer ball striker not concerned with suddenly taking the air out of the ball with touch shots, slice and dice tactics, cutesy finesse angles, and so forth. Everything Agassi tried to throw at you was hard, brutal, and clean...mercenary.

* * *

Actually, Agassi had superb touch, a deadly dropshot and more than competent volleys! His only weakness, IMO, arose out of his congenital back injury and the effect that it had on his serve, mobility and his ability to hit on the stretch in the second half of his career.

AA was the better "pure ball striker" the way I understand the description. He centered the ball more often and markedly so for how close to the bounce he would take the ball on the rise.

That isn't to say that AA is the better player or even better, overall, off the ground than Fed. You can't view the two players being compared in a vacuum. Fed did and does attempt far more varied shots, in terms of speed and spin, off the ground than AA ever did, from the far greater amount of topspin off either wing to the severe chop backhands he mixed/es in to his shot choices. For what he attempts and succeeds in accomplishing off the ground Fed truly can't be expected to center the sweetspot nearly as often as AA did.

AA did hit the ball more cleanly but that doesn't mean he was a better ballstriker.

He just used a quite moderate swing while federer swings really wristy and spinny. that means he has much less margin for error. the more spin and wrist action you have the less margin for error you have because your swing plane doesn't match the ball plane but intersects it steeply meaning you have a short time window to hit the ball.

Extreme spin always means some framing and shanking it's much easier to strike the ball cleanly flat. no coincidence that all the flat hitters look like they hit it always cleanly (davydenko, agassi, Delpo).

I was watching Agassi's 2000 Australian Open semifinal match against Sampras and I wondered if I don't actually enjoy watching Agassi at his best more than Federer!

Well I like watching Agassi, Sampras better than today bc it seems the ball moves faster and such. More fun but thats what I think.
For someone at 35 to hit so cleanly without shanking much I think hes crazy good.

Actually, Agassi had superb touch, a deadly dropshot and more than competent volleys! His only weakness, IMO, arose out of his congenital back injury and the effect that it had on his serve, mobility and his ability to hit on the stretch in the second half of his career.

Really? Guess I was watching some other Andre Agassi... the one I remember had terrible volleys....no real sense of what he was doing in the forecourt.

AA was the better "pure ball striker" the way I understand the description. He centered the ball more often and markedly so for how close to the bounce he would take the ball on the rise.

That isn't to say that AA is the better player or even better, overall, off the ground than Fed. You can't view the two players being compared in a vacuum. Fed did and does attempt far more varied shots, in terms of speed and spin, off the ground than AA ever did, from the far greater amount of topspin off either wing to the severe chop backhands he mixed/es in to his shot choices. For what he attempts and succeeds in accomplishing off the ground Fed truly can't be expected to center the sweetspot nearly as often as AA did.

5

That's a good point. Federer plays closer to the boundry between extreme shotmaking and mis-hitting than pretty much anyone else. He has some of the wrist-i-est groundies I've ever seen which helps him generate power and spin, but, also results in less consistent ball contact. So does Ralph, as could be seen in his numerous fh shanks in the USO final against Joko! Obviously, Ralph wasn't at his best that day, and that's what happens when you live by the sword, so to speak.

Laver's game and attitude was exactly the same. He had very wristy, high power, heavy topspin, groundies and preferred to go for more and risk a few more errors. For example, on one hand, Laver was criticized for hitting too many double faults, and on the other hand, he was praised for the power, depth and kick (and alternatively slice), he got on his second serve.

Really? Guess I was watching some other Andre Agassi... the one I remember had terrible volleys....no real sense of what he was doing in the forecourt.

he was an 8 time slam champion that i would consider an underachiever that had the potential to win much more. To say someone like that had terrible ANYTHING is a complete joke. Were his volleys as good as his ground game? of course not, but his volleys were not terrible. Plus he knew when to come in on the right shot and was good as sneaking in behind a tough shot

agassi was more reliable because he hit his ball pretty much the same way all the time.

but ive never seen a player handle pace better than federer.

federer hits with more spin, and thus will mishit sometimes. But i dont think he mishits at a rate higher than his peers. Agassi probably did not hit the frame as much as fed but this has so much to do with their technique and the angle of the racquet.

Bottom line: Fed shanks more balls in two games than AA did in a season. Seriously!

well fed owned agassi not because of his ballstriking but because he was better in:
-serve
-shot making (angles, slice, dropper, net game, overhead)
-speed
-footwork
-agility

(just some minor details).

I would say agassi was a cleaner ballstriker than fed but you have to consider that fed is an extreme topspin player. we always consider the flat hard strikers like agassi, davydenko, davenport, del potro and so on and cleaner ballstrikers but they do also have an "unfair" advantage:

when you hit flat your racket moves relatively parellel to the ball flight giving you a large zone to hit the ball while the topspin player hits in a steep angle towards the ball. that means your racket and ball move in different directions only giving you one possible contact point.

in baseball players thus try to match the plane of the pitch with their swing to have a higher chance of hitting it cleanly. hitting heavy top is the opposite of matching the plane.

if agassi tried to swing as spinny (and wristy) as fed does he would shank a whole lot more. so comparing flat hitters with heavy spin players is kinda unfair in that regard. and the one handed BH also is more shank prone than a two hander.

Agassi at his best was the best ballstriker I have seen, including Fed whom I personally consider the GOAT, by the way. When Andre was still young (his long hair and fluorescent spandex 'image is everything' years) he could hit every shot in the book with winners out of nowhere no less outrageous than the ones Fed is known for. But it didn't win him many tournaments so he toned it down a notch going for the extra consistency.

During his most successful years Agassi had perfected his tactics to a point where his game was indeed quite boring to watch- heavy serve intended not to hit an outright winner but to pull the receiver out of position and then take him apart with precision groundies. During this period you always had the feeling that Agassi still had an extra gear which he very seldom used rather preferring to stay in the zone of utmost control. He would still hit the occasional out-of-this-world return when he was himself out of position but he always chose to stay in balance whenever possible and make the opponent run instead.

Needless to say, I much preferred watching the young Andre, that was so much more fun.

On a side note, yes, his volleys always looked a bit awkward compared to the supreme stylists like Edberg and Boris and even Pete but he had excellent hands, good coverage and the luxury of being able to come back behind the best groundstrokes in the game This helps a lot!